Shocking Michael J. Fox Ad in MO Senate Race

I think Tony, Hondo, Jack & Lyman should form the SportsJournalists.com branch of "The Democrat Party".

How can you live in a country and get the name of one of the major political parties consistently wrong?

 

Okay. Here's a thought for Rush and his defenders:

If Fox's natural state, as a victim of Parkinson's, is one of high-frequency tremors and spasm, is it not more honest of Mr. Fox to present himself publicly in that way? More honest than it is for him to subdue the symptoms with medication? The medication might be considered a mask that Mr. Fox dons for public appearances.

So Limbaugh, et al., are criticizing him for appearing as he actually is, rather than as we'd be more comfortable seeing him.

Thanks, of course, to L-dopa, another product of government subsidized drug study.

 

I'm not doing the comparison: you were.

However you want to spin it, Banting & Best's discovery of insulin was made possible because of U of T. Now, if you want to find out exactly how much money that would have been and then convert it to 2006 dollars, go ahead. It won't change the basic facts.

But keep quibbling.

 

See, this is what gets me. And I know this is a broad, rambling way of looking at it, but it's kind of how my mind works.

We get our undergarments in a wad over the rights of embryos, fetuses (or is it fetusi?) and whatnot. We fight and fight and fight over at what stage this becomes "human life". And, of course, we fight about the religious implications.

But do we (collectively) put as much energy into ensuring the kids we DO have are ensured the best future possible? Doesn't seem like it. We'll get into dust-ups over these kinds of issues, but meanwhile there are still truckloads of Guinness-swilling assholes who knock up random women, end up with a kid, and have no idea how to RAISE the kid.

I'm glad so many people are fighting for the unborn and whatnot. We're all entitled, I suppose. But speaking as someone who spent a year working alongside The Shittiest Dad Ever, and being pretty sure that his progeny will be straddling a pole in some seedy midwestern strip joint by age 19, I'd rather we invest more into helping those who choose to have kids to RAISE those kids.

Yeah, I'm all for a woman's right to choose. And I'm all for stem-cell research. But I'm more for teaching young single moms how to raise a kid, or for teaching guys that a real man takes care of his kids.

Forget the unborn. What about the ones we have here?

Sorry. Rambling, weird, loopy view. I know. But it's all this stuff makes me think about.

 

A superb view which has shut up Republicans and Democrats alike, kaylee. That's always the BEST kind of response.

 

You couldn't be more right.

My girlfriend works for a pro-life organization. There isn't a day that goes by that she doesn't think the money her group has to spend could be better spent on something else.

 

Forget the conversion. Like I said, ESC research can have the lab space, 10 dogs, and a medical assistant, whatever the taxpayer cost.

I brought facts, nailed you, and now you're doing what you accuse everyone else of doing when someone on your side brings facts.

 

Problem is, Jack, your facts are irrelevant to what's under discussion.

Whether U of T provided $1,000,000 worth of funding or $100, it doesn't change the fact that a government funded institution, not "free enterprise" was responsible for providing the funding for one of the greatest medical achievements of the 20th entury.

But keep quibbling.

 

Then have your government provide all the money and prove how superior you are yet again. You are so damn smug.

 

Kaylee, I understand and appreciate what you say. My view is pretty simple: I believe life starts at conception and if it's a life it should be protected as forcefully as the lives of anyone post-womb. All anyone has to do to convince me that life doesn't start at conception is find just one -- JUST ONE!! -- person who was born but NOT conceived. And because fetuses are not yet born they end up being the most defenseless victims of all when they are targeted for death by certain individuals in the name of convenience disguised as "privacy."

That's my view. But I will say this: Your questions are legitimate and I give them full consideration. I guess what I'm saying is we have to do better on both fronts. Responsibility is a great place to start. But suggesting responsibility to the jackals here will only get one laughed at.

 

O_T -

The jackals only laugh at the non-strategy of abstinence, Tony, not personal responsibilty.

 

One person born but not concieved?

Jesus Christ.

Next question from a smarter monkey, please.